嘉律师研究 | YANJIN SHOP Approved Based on Acquired Secondary Meaning
发布时间：2025-07-09
In a landmark ruling recently made public, the Beijing High Court ([2025] Jing Xing Zhong No. 977), approved registration of the trademark 盐津铺子 (YANJIN SHOP) based on acquired secondary meaning. Article 10.2 of China’s Trademark Law explicitly prohibits registering county-level as well as geographic names as trademarks. Exceptions via “acquired distinctiveness” are exceptionally scarce in practice due to high evidentiary thresholds.
The Court held that the mark (Application No. 73000956, specimen shown below), filed by Yanjin Shop Food Co., Ltd. for Class 32 goods, including “beer, fruit juice, and fruit-flavored soft drinks, etc.,” had gained secondary meaning beyond its geographic association with Yanjin County, Yunnan Province.
The China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) initially rejected the trademark in 2023 under Article 10.2 of the China Trademark Law, finding that “盐津” (Yanjin) refers to a county-level administrative division. Yanjin Shop Food Co., Ltd. appealed to the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, which overturned CNIPA’s decision in 2024 ([2024] Jing 73 Xing Chu No. 17162).
CNIPA appealed to the Beijing High Court, which upheld the lower court’s ruling, emphasizing the following:
The disputed trademark consists of the Chinese characters “盐津铺子” (Yanjin Shop). Although “盐津” (Yanjin) is the name of a county-level administrative division in China, the trademark is used as a combination of “盐津” (Yanjin) and “铺子” (Shop). Based on evidence Yanjin Shop Food Co., Ltd. submitted, the relevant public perceives the term “盐津” (Yanjin), when used in relation to foods, as referring to a food processing method or flavor.
Through Yanjin Shop Food Co., Ltd.’s long-term promotion and use, 盐津铺子 (YANJIN SHOP), used as a trademark on fruit tea beverages, etc., has gained a certain market reputation, enabling relevant consumers to sufficiently distinguish it from the geographic name of Yanjin County.
Additionally, the Beijing High Court clarified criteria for recognizing secondary meaning of geographic names:
The trademark consists solely of a geographical name, and that name itself possesses other meanings;
The trademark contains a geographical name, but the trademark as a whole is distinguishable from the geographical name;
The trademark contains a geographical name and, while not inherently distinguishable from the geographical name, has become sufficient to enable the public to distinguish it from that geographical name through use.
Though China is not a case law country, this judgment provides critical guidance for future cases involving geographic name trademarks. By affirming the role of commercial use in establishing secondary meaning, the decision aligns with global trademark practices while respecting domestic legal frameworks.
